recited, the law of the gospel, 'to do unto others as we would be done

unto.'"

The EARL OF NOTTINGHAM said, "he had observed, both from history and from his own experience, that all the persecution that had been raised in England against schismatics originally proceeded from and tended to produce Popery."

LORD HALIFAX moved that Dissenters might be allowed schools for the instruction of THEIR OWN CHILDREN. A majority, however, of the enlightened and liberal legislators of the day considered that to be too great an indulgence for schismatics, and the motion was lost. The legislative liberality was extended by the insertion of two clauses. One was that Dissenters might be permitted to have SCHOOLMISTRESSES to teach their children to read. The other, still more important, that this act should not extend to any person who should instruct youth in reading, writing, arithmetic, or any part of mathematical learning which relates to navigation and mathematics only!

The inflicting of the penalties which was taken out of the hands of the Justices of the Peace, where the Commons had proposed to place it, was committed to the cognizance of the Superior Courts. This afforded some additional alleviation.

On the third reading of the bill an exception from its penalties was obtained for every person employed by any NOBLEMAN or NOBLEWOMAN to teach in their families, provided he did in every respect qualify himself according to the act, except only in that of taking a license from the bishop. The provisions of this bill were made to extend to Ireland; and it was carried with some trivial alterations, without improving its spirit.

66

It is interesting, however, to know that there were several noble peers who not only raised their voices against the persecuting Schism Act, but a very spirited protest was signed by six dukes, one marquis, ten earls, two viscounts, seven lords, and five bishops." The fourth article of this protest was, "This must be the more grievous to the Dissenters, because it was little expected from the members of the Established Church, after so favourable an indulgence from the Act of Toleration, and the repeated declarations and professions FROM THE THRONE ANd former ParlIAMENTS against all persecutions, which is the peculiar badge of the Roman Church, which avows and practices this doctrine; and yet this has not been retaliated even among the Papists; for all the laws made against them have been the effects and just punishment of treasons from time to time committed against the state. But it is not pretended that this bill is designed as the punishment of any crime which the Protestant dis

senters have been guilty of against the civil government, or that they are disaffected to the Protestant succession, as by law established, for in this THEIR ZEAL IS CONSPICUOUS."*

There remained yet one effort to be made to prevent this obnoxious bill from passing into a law. A firm and temperate memorial was circulated in an octavo pamphlet of 39 pages.

There is good reason for thinking that this document emanated from the general body of dissenting ministers of the three denominations in London, assisted by the respectable laymen of their respective congregations. There must have been too a correspondence with the country churches, to warrant the statement that it " was in the name of the whole body."

Ivimey, in his third volume of the History of the Baptists, gives at full length a copy of this appeal to the Queen.† Notwithstanding, however, the presentation of this humble supplication, it is said the Queen was so infatuated by her ecclesiastical councillors, that on the 25th June, 1714, she ordered that the royal assent should be given to the Schism Bill by commission.

"The very day (August 1) on which it was to take place, the Queen departed this life, which circumstance frustrated the measures of those who had promoted that law, and rendered it in a manner ineffectual." Bishop Burnet, who was opposed to this law, says that "the Parliament which passed this bill was the worst he ever knew."||

The Baptist historian, Crosby, says respecting this event, "But Providence and its inevitable decrees took the whole work out of their hands, surprising to all, but terrible as a clap of thunder to the enemies of the Protestant succession."

Queen Anne died 1st August, 1714, in the 13th year of her reign.

As the subject of SCHISM has formed a topic of reference, before proceeding farther it may be well to inquire, WHAT IS SCHISM?

A reply to this subject may be found in "The Tracts for the Times,Ӥ which presents some illustrative views upon the question of schism, promulgated from the Oxford University, and which are intended, as will appear, to be applicable to Dissenters.

The following are headings to sections from Cyprian, a great ecclesiastical authority:

I. HERESY AND SCHISM ARE SNARES OF THE DEVIL.

II. SCHISM, AN EVIDENCE OF PRESUMPTION AND PERVERSENESS,

* Ivimey, vol. 3, p. 79. Rapin's Continuation.

+ Ivimey, vol. 3, pp. 81 to 101. Burnet's Life and Times, vol. 2, p. 63.

Records of the Church, No. XIX., vol. 2. 1839,

III. SCHISM IS NOT EXPIATED BY MARTYRDOM.

IV. SCHISMATISING IS MORE HEINOUS THAN LAPSING,
NULLIFIES CONFESSORSHIP.

V. THE DUTY OF WITHDRAWING FROM SCHISMATICS.
VI. CONVENTICLES

FAVOURS.

AND

HAVE no claim TO CHRIST'S PROMISED

VII. THE ONE CHURCH CATHOLIC, AND ONE ONLY IN EVERY

PLACE.

Such were the sentiments issued from the source referred to, for the purpose of a timely instructing of the people in what were considered orthodox sentiments upon the various questions of ecclesiastical polity adverted to.

The reader will judge from them in what estimation Dissenters are held; views which may be considered as the authorized principles from the channels through which the "Tracts" emanated.

Let the inquiry further be made, WHAT IS SCHISM? An ecclesiastical authority shall give the reply.

Swift says, "When a schism is once spread, there grows at length a dispute which are the schismatics, IN THE SENSE OF THE LAW; the schism lies on that side which opposes itself to the religion of the state."

If these views are considered sound, Catholics were schismatics in the time of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and Protestants were schismatics under Mary; and the Baptists under each of these reigns, as well as under the Presbyterians, were considered "damnable" heretics and schismatics in the highest degree, as were all others who dissented from the established religion of the respective periods.

It will be manifest, from various historical incidents which have already passed under notice in these pages, that as the sentiments quoted from Cyprian so fully accord with the tenets of the Romish Church, so also they have been, and are maintained under Protestant rule, as they also were under Presbyterian pre-eminence. Doctrines that have formed THE VERY BASIS OF THE BITTER PERSECUTIONS which have been inflicted by predominating ecclesiastical powers which have ALTERNATELY ruled in this country.

Doubtless the periodical diffusion, in a cheap form, of those principles to which reference has been made, may have had, to some extent, a pernicious influence, inasmuch as they must tend greatly to widen the breach between those entertaining extreme opposite opinions upon these subjects; yet they can have had comparatively BUT LITTLE EFFECT UPON THE MASSES of the community. How many of the Oxford Tracts have been written under the influence of Jesuitical training? Does it speak much in their praise that they receive favour

able commendation from those who are considered ENLIGHTENED Catholics?

In the advertisement to the first volume of "Tracts for the Times" Dissenters are thus spoken of:

66

Experience has shewn the inefficiency of the mere injunctions of church order, however scripturally enforced, IN RESTRAINING FROM SCHISM the awakened and anxious sinner, who goes to a dissenting preacher, because (as he expressed) he 'gets good from him;' and though he does not stand excused in God's sight FOR YIELDING TO THE TEMPTATION, surely the ministers of the church are not blameless if, by keeping back the more gracious and consoling truths provided for the little ones of Christ, they indirectly lead them into it, (the temptation.)

"Had he been taught as a child that THE SACRAMENTS-not preaching—are the sources of Divine grace,—that the APOSTOLICAL MINISTRY had a virtue in it, which went over the whole church, when sought by the prayer of faith,—that fellowship with it was a gift and a privilege, as well as a duty,-we could not have had so many WANDERERS from our fold, nor so many cold hearts within it.

"This instance may suggest many others of the SUPERIOR INFLUENCE over a mere SECULAR method of teaching. The awakened mind knows its wants, but cannot provide for them; and in its hunger Will FEED UPON ASHES, if it cannot obtain the pure milk of the word.

"METHODISM and POPERY are, in different ways, THE REFUGE of those whom the church stints with the means of grace; THE FOSTERMOTHERS OF ABANDONED CHILDREN; the neglect of the daily service; the desecration of festivals; the eucharist scantily administered; insubordination permitted in all ranks of the church; orders and offices imperfectly developed; the want of societies for particular religious objects; and the like deficiencies, lead the feverish mind, desirous of a vent to its feelings and a stricter rule of life, TO THE SMALLER RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES TO PRAYER AND BIBLE MEETINGS, AND ILL-ADVISED INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIETIES on the one hand, and on the other to the solemn and captivating services by which Popery gains its proselytes."

There is no intention nor desire for one moment to expresss, in an hostile spirit, sentiments which have a decided reference to the feelings now existing between two great parties of religionists in this country; but are the preceding views calculated to draw back into the one "fold" the "wanderers" to whom allusion is made? Two classes are therein referred to, METHODISTS AND PAPISTS. The former may

*This article is dated Oxford, "The Feast of All Saints," 1834.

be considered as embracing ALL DISSENTERS OF WHATEVER NAMÉ SOEVER. The latter profess also to possess the one "fold," and PARAMOUNT to that of their denouncers, who are also considered BY PAPISTS as schismatics.

The foregoing extracts and observations are intended to illustrate and explain present received opinions upon the subject of SCHISM.

George the First ascended the British Throne, and this gave new life to the Protestant interests throughout Europe. The Protestant dissenters, in their threefold relation, were early in presenting an address to the King, a copy of which appeared in the Gazette of October 2, 1714. They reiterated their former expressions of loyalty and affection. An extract or two is here given from that address :

"The parliamentary entail of the crown upon your illustrious house we have ever esteemed one of the greatest blessings procured for us by our late glorious deliverer, King William, of immortal memory. To this happy settlement we have constantly adhered against all temptations and dangers. Our zeal herein has been owned to be very conspicuous by those noble patriots who now surround your throne.

"We hold no principles but what do in conscience oblige us to acknowledge your Majesty for our only lawful and rightful Sovereign, and to do everything in our power to support your title and government against all pretenders whatsoever."*

The following was the King's reply to this address:—

"I am very well pleased with your expressions of duty to me, and you may depend upon having my protection."

Such was the favourable feeling of George I, towards his dissenting subjects, that encouraged them throughout the kingdom, that it would be a good opportunity for seeking the repeal of all the invidious acts which were in force against them. Upon THE KING pressing this affair with the ministers, he was told by LORD SUNDERLAND that it would be impracticable, and that to press the repeal of the Test Act at that time would ruin all. It is stated, however, that the King informed LORD Barrington, who was A DISSENTER, that he would have been glad could the whole measure have been carried; but as he was assured that it could not be at that time, he believed the Dissenters were too much his friends to insist upon himself, which might be "infinitely prejudicial to him, and which, instead of doing them any service, would only turn to their injury." The Dissenters,

* Ivimey, vol. 2, p. 115.